55 total possible votes.
44% voted yea.
This means 56% either voted no or abstained.
Rome could not even get a simple majority on this issue.
So much for a "unanimous" consent on this issue.
What else is interesting is the issue of the Latin Vulgate being THE official translation. Other texts were not allowed.
YET in 1943 Pius XII allowed translation based on texts other than the Latin Vulgate. That's quite a lot of change from the group that claims they never change.
I tell ya, when you start peeling back the layers of the onion it gets interesting.
But IF the Roman Catholic really looked at their history they'd also find a number of the dogmas they've been told they HAVE to believe are based on books rejected by the early church and in some cases condemned by the early church.
Yet, they blindly continue to accept what they've been told.
To be accurate, this was informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to dogmatically affirm (as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it).
Yet there simply was no official version of the Latin Vulgate, the official Bible, and due to the variant translations of the Vulgate and the errors among them, a standardized official version was attempted, resulting in the it resulted in the first edition of the Latin Vulgate authorised by a pope, that of the scandalous work of Pope Sixtus V, the Sistine Vulgate which resulted the death (likely murder) of its fanatical papal translator, besides only blaming copyists for its many errors, and seeking to buy up all copies, in order to destroy them. If you can find one you can be very rich. And the the variations among Protestants, as with variations among Catholics today, were mainly due to interpretation.As a result of persecutions by RC Bloody Mary, the first edition of the Geneva Bible was published in 1560, which became the most popular translation in English. But because annotations or notes in the Geneva Bible were overall Calvinist and Puritan in character, which resulted in the King James Bible of 1611.
But which in turn is not much different than the 1750 Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible, and it would mainly be the notes (which canon law requires Catholic Bibles to have) that correlate to variant interpretations. Meanwhile, if maintaining the authenticity of the content and the meaning of Scripture is the reason for Catholic translations, with some of its required notes, then Catholic can hardly recommend their official American Bible .